Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices at renewable energy sites We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices at renewable energy sites on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2748https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2748Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:48:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices at cooling water intake structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices at cooling water intake structures on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2751https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2751Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:53:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on moving vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices on moving vessels on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2761https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2761Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:05:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices at aquaculture systems Six studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of using acoustic devices at aquaculture systems. Four studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, UK), one was in the Reloncaví fjord (Chile) and one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including five before-and-after and/or site comparison studies and one controlled study) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Reloncaví fjord and the Mediterranean Sea found that using acoustic devices at salmon farms reduced predation on caged salmon by grey seals, harbour seals and South American sea lions, or reduced the number of harbour seals approaching a fish cage. The two other studies found that using acoustic devices did not reduce harbour seal predation at salmon farms, or reduce the presence, approach distances, groups sizes or time spent around fin-fish farms by common bottlenose dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2775https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2775Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:29:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals away from aquaculture systems to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals away from aquaculture systems to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both studies were in the Tasman Sea and one was also in the Southern Ocean (Tasmania). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one site comparison study) in the Tasman Sea (one also in the Southern Ocean) found that more than half or nearly all of Australian and New Zealand fur seals translocated away from salmon farms returned. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2776https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2776Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:43:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set and enforce vessel speed limits Two studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of setting and enforcing vessel speed limits. One study was in the Indian River estuarine system (USA) and the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the Indian River estuarine system found similar numbers of manatee deaths before and after vessel speed limits were set in ‘zones’, but fewer deaths were recorded after speed limits were set and enforced in all areas. One before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that setting vessel speed limits during specific periods in key habitats resulted in fewer North Atlantic right whale deaths caused by collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2777https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2777Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:48:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a smaller mesh size for fishing nets We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a smaller mesh size for fishing nets on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2802https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2802Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:11:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size for fishing trap-nets One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of using a larger mesh size for fishing trap-nets. The study was in the River Indal (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the River Indal found that a fishing trap-net with a larger mesh size in the first two sections had fewer grey seals feeding around it and less damage caused by seals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2803https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2803Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:13:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing gear Thirty-three studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on fishing gear. Eight studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, UK), four studies were in each of the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the North Sea (Germany, Denmark, UK), three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy), two studies were in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina, Brazil) and the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Germany, Sweden), and one study was in each of Moreton Bay (Australia), the Black Sea (Turkey), the Celtic Sea (UK), the South Pacific Ocean (Peru), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), the UK (water body not stated), the Great Belt (Denmark), Omura Bay (Japan), and the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (16 STUDIES) Behaviour change (16 studies): Twelve of 16 controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Fortune Channel, the South Atlantic Ocean, Moreton Bay, the Mediterranean Sea, the Celtic Sea, the Rainbow Channel, a coastal site in the UK, the Great Belt, the North Sea, Omura Bay and the Indian Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets resulted in harbour porpoises, common bottlenose dolphins, tuxuci dolphins, finless porpoises and seals approaching nets or lines less closely, having fewer encounters or interactions with nets, or activity and sightings were reduced in the surrounding area. The other four studies found that using acoustic devices on trawl nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets did not have a significant effect on the behaviour of common bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins or dugongs. OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (14 studies): Nine studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and after studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, and the South Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on cod traps or fishing nets resulted in fewer collisions of humpback whales or entanglements of harbour porpoises, Franciscana dolphins, beaked whales and small cetaceans. Three studies (including two controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets resulted in fewer entanglements of some species but not others. One controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets with a ‘complete’ set of acoustic devices had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises, but those with an ‘incomplete’ set did not. One replicated, controlled study in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets reduced harbour porpoise entanglements in one fishing area but not the other. Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five of six studies (including six controlled studies, one of which was replicated) in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, a coastal site in the UK and the North Sea found that using acoustic devices reduced damage to fish catches and/or fishing nets caused by common bottlenose dolphins and seals. The other study found that acoustic devices did not reduce damage to swordfish catches by California sea lions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2808https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2808Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:56:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing vessels Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on vessels. One study was in each of the Shannon Estuary (Ireland), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), Keppel Bay (Australia), the North Atlantic Ocean (Azores) and the Indian Ocean (Crozet Islands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): One controlled study in the Shannon Estuary found that common bottlenose dolphins avoided a boat more frequently when acoustic devices of two types were deployed alongside it. One controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that killer whales were recorded further from a fishing vessel when an acoustic device was used during hauls, but distances decreased after the first exposure to the device. Two before-and-after studies in the Rainbow Channel and Keppel Bay found that an acoustic device deployed alongside a vessel reduced surfacing and echolocation rates and time spent foraging or socializing of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins and Australian snubfin dolphins but there was no effect on 8–10 other types of behaviour (e.g. vocalizing, diving, travelling etc.). OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using acoustic devices of two types did not reduce predation of squid catches by Risso’s dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2815https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2815Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:45:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on moorings Eight studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of using acoustic devices on moorings. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean and one study was in each of the Puntledge River (Canada), the Bay of Fundy (Canada), the Shannon Estuary (Ireland), the Rivers Conon and Esk (UK), the Kyle of Sutherland estuary (UK) and the North Atlantic Ocean (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (7 STUDIES) Behaviour change (7 studies): Two of four controlled studies in the South Pacific Ocean, the Kyle of Sutherland estuary and the North Atlantic Ocean found that deploying acoustic devices on moorings reduced numbers of grey and harbour seals, and the activity of harbour porpoises, short-beaked common dolphins and common bottlenose dolphins. The two other studies found that using an acoustic device on a mooring did not have a significant effect on the number, direction of movement, speed, or dive durations of migrating humpback whales. One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using an acoustic device on a mooring reduced harbour porpoise echolocation activity, but the probability of porpoises approaching within 125 m of the device increased over 10–11 days. One controlled study in the Shannon Estuary found that one of two types of acoustic device reduced the activity of common bottlenose dolphins. One replicated, controlled study in the Rivers Conon and Esk found that using acoustic devices reduced the number of grey and harbour seals upstream of the device but did not reduce seal numbers overall. OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized controlled study in the Puntledge River found that deploying an acoustic device on a mooring reduced the number of harbour seals feeding on migrating juvenile salmon. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2816https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2816Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:00:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic decoys to divert mammals away from fishing gear One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic decoys to divert mammals away from fishing gear. The study was in the Gulf of Alaska (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the Gulf of Alaska found that increasing the distance between an acoustic decoy device and fishing lines resulted in fewer sperm whales at the lines, but sperm whale presence and time of arrival did not differ. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2820https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2820Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:15:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Switch off artificial lighting at wild fisheries One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of switching off artificial lights at a wild fishery. The study was in the Puntledge River (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the Puntledge River found that switching off artificial lights on a bridge did not deter harbour seals from feeding on salmon released from a hatchery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2825https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2825Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:56:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures. The study was in the Bay of Fundy (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using ‘marine mammal nets’ with a larger mesh size to release harbour porpoises from herring weirs resulted in lower porpoise mortality compared to using conventional herring nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2828https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2828Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:00:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote marine and freshwater mammal conservation One study evaluated the effects of training tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote marine and freshwater mammal conservation. The study was in the Kenai Fjords (Alaska). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Kenai Fjords found that fewer harbour seals were disturbed during kayak excursions after training was provided to kayak guides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2840https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2840Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:20:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before release We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before release, on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2854https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2854Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:01:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate or temporarily bring marine and freshwater mammals into captivity to reduce exposure to disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects of translocating or temporarily bringing marine and freshwater mammals into captivity to reduce exposure to disease. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2859https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2859Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:18:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating disease in wild marine and freshwater mammals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2860https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2860Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:19:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2863https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2863Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:24:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting or improving minimum sewage treatment standards on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2867https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2867Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:27:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting a regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste on marine mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2875https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2875Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:41:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2880https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2880Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:44:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure Three studies evaluated the effects of using ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure. One study was in each of the South Atlantic Ocean (Gabon), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and various water bodies (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): One study in various water bodies around the UK found that a greater proportion of cetaceans (including whales, dolphins and porpoise) avoided or moved away from vessels during ‘soft start’ procedures with seismic airguns compared to when airguns were not firing. One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that during ‘soft start’ procedures using seismic airguns, a pod of short-finned whales initially moved away but remained within 900 m of the vessel as it passed by. One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that during ‘soft-start’ procedures with a small experimental airgun array, migrating humpback whales slowed their speed towards the vessel but did not significantly alter their course. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2897https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2897Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:12:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate marine and freshwater mammals to re-establish or boost native populations Four studies evaluated the effects of translocating marine mammals to re-establish or boost native populations. The four studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One replicated study and one review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after translocating Hawaiian monk seals, along with rehabilitation or at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals reproduced. Survival (4 studies): Two studies (including one replicated and one controlled study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that 50–83% of translocated, and 52% of rehabilitated and translocated, Hawaiian monk seal pups survived for at least one year. One of the studies and one review in the North Pacific Ocean found that translocated seal pups had similar survival rates to non-translocated pups born at release sites or greater survival rates than non-translocated pups remaining at the original site. One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that translocating Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, resulted in more than a quarter of the seals surviving. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that translocated Hawaiian monk seal pups had similar dispersal times to non-translocated seal pups born at release sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2930https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2930Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:11:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate marine and freshwater mammal species before onset of impactful activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of translocating marine and freshwater mammal species before onset of impactful activities. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2931https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2931Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:26:24 +0000